Herrera

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY E. HERRERA,

Plaintiff : CIV. ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-1530

V. : (JUDGE MANNION)

AGENTS OF PENNSYLVANIA :

BOARD OF PROBATION

AND PAROLE, et al., :

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

For the reasons set forth below, the case will be dismissed with prejudice for

plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

l. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Jeffrey E. Herrera, filed this case on September 30, 2022,

asserting that defendants violated his civil rights by holding him in prison

beyond his maximum release date. (Doc. 1). On November 9, 2022, the court

dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that it barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Docs. 12-13). The United States Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated this judgment and remanded the case,

concluding that the case was not barred by Heck, but that Herrera’s

complaint may nonetheless be subject to dismissal because it may be

untimely. (Doc. 37-1). The court accordingly directed this court to grant

Herrera leave to amend his complaint to determine whether equitable tolling

of the statute of limitations is warranted. (/d.)

Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a “petition to equitably toll’ the

limitations period. (Doc. 40). The court, liberally construing this document as

a request to litigate the timeliness and equitable tolling issues through

motions practice rather than through an amended complaint, granted the

request, reopened the case, and gave plaintiff a deadline to file a legal brief

presenting his arguments. (Doc. 41). Plaintiff then filed sixteen nnotions in the

ensuing months complaining about the court’s handling of tnis and various

other procedural issues. The court resolved these motions in an omnibus

order on December 8, 2025, denying or deeming withdrawn the motions

except to the extent they sought leave to amend plain:iff’s timeliness

arguments. (Doc. 74). The court accordingly required plaintiff to file a single

brief presenting his arguments within thirty days. (/d.)

On December 17, 2025, the court’s order was returned) as

undeliverable, with a notation indicating that plaintiff had been released from

the county prison in which he was previously detained. (Doc. 74).

Subsequent searches by the court on the online inmate locators of the

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the United States Bureau of

Prisons indicate that he is also not in state or federal custody. In light of

Herrera’s failure to keep the court informed of his current mailing address

despite his obligation to do so, (see Doc. 4), the court will analyze whether

dismissal of the case for Herrera’s failure to prosecute is appropriate.

ll. | DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows for the dismissal of an

action for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with these rules or

order of court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). When determining whether to dismiss

a case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), the court must balance the

factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863

(3d Cir. 1984). These factors include:

(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the

prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet

scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of

dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney

was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other

than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions;

and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.

Id. at 868. Not all of the Poulis factors must be satisfied in order for a court

to dismiss a complaint. Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992).

The first three Poulis factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case.

First, because Herrera is proceeding pro se, he is personally responsible for

his failure to comply with the court’s orders. Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d

184, 191 (3d Cir. 2002). Second, his failure to update his address prejudices

to defendants by delaying resolution of the case. Manuel v. Harry, No. 1:20-

CV-2309, 2021 WL 602723, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2021). Third, Herrera

has shown a history of dilatoriness by failing to update his address. /d.

The court finds that the fourth and fifth Poulis factors—whether

plaintiff's conduct was willful or in bad faith and the effectiveness of sanctions

other than dismissal—also weigh in favor of dismissal. First, his failure to

abide by court orders demonstrates a willful disregard for procedural rules

and court directives. Second, because the court does not have a current

mailing address for him and thus cannot meaningfully enforce any other

sanctions against him at this time, the court is without any viable alternative

to dismissal. The sixth and final factor, the meritoriousness of plaintiff's claim,

also weighs in favor of dismissal. As noted above, the Third Circuit has

concluded that plaintiffs complaint is facially untimely and has remanded for

further proceedings to determine whether equitable tolling is necessary.

(Doc. 37-1). Herrera has not presented any equitable tolling arguments since

the case was remanded. Thus, on the current record, it appears that

dismissing the complaint as untimely would likely be appropriate.

Upon balancing the Poulis factors, the court finds that they weigh

heavily in favor of dismissal. In light of plaintiff's failures to comply with court

orders, we will dismiss this action with prejudice. See Hamer v. LivaNova

Deutschland GmbH, 994 F.3d 173, 177 n.3 (3d Cir. 2021) (“District courts

have authority under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to

dismiss claims with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order.”).

However, because the court has not previously given Herrera notice that the

case may be dismissed for his failure to prosecute, the court will

automatically reopen the case without Herrera having to file a formal notice

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60 if he updates his

address within thirty days of this decision.

Ill. . CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court will dismiss this case with

prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). An appropriate order shall issue.

wh Mannion

United States District Judge

eae